The Truth About GMOs and Why Companies Don't Want The Words "GMO" On Their Labels
Published on February 14, 2014. Mary McShane, All Rights Reserved
The short definition for genetically modified organisms
No one knows the long range effects of eating GMO's
Cloning was the forerunner of altering DNA
Aside from the first test tube baby born in 1978, the idea of altering the DNA (cloning) received world wide attention when scientists accomplished the cloning of Dolly, the sheep in 1996. After an amazing 277 clone attempts, she was finally born on July 5, 1996 and she died February 14, 2003 from a progressive lung disease, usually not seen in sheep until they are 11 or 12 years old.
Because she was cloned (genetically modified), it was speculated that a contributing factor to Dolly's death was that she was already at the genetic age of six years old by the time of her birth, the same age as the sheep from which she was cloned. Her life expectancy was only 7 more years instead of 12, which is what ultimately happened when she died almost 7 years after birth. Dolly had given birth 3 times for a total of 6 lambs, each pregnancy resulting in a higher multiple than the previous - a single birth in 1998, a set of twins in 1999, and a set of triplets in 2000. Multiple births was a phenomena not usually seen in non-cloned sheep.
This whole experiment should have been a high sign that messing around with DNA was going to cause problems.
What we know about GMO's
Reports about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in our food are now commonplace on our nightly news programs and in newspapers.
But back in the 1970s, 80's and 90's, all we heard about on the news was the scarce food supplies where we resorted to importing more than half of our products.
And now, in light of the prevalence of GMO's in our foods, it seems that it may all have been a sham back then - a cover for the behind the scenes research and development of genetically modified foods and organisms.
Governments have long entertained introducing GMO's into our foods as a solution to the alarmists who have said for decades now that the world's food supply is running out.
The germ of an idea of modifying existing products dates back to the 1960s during the Vietnam War when Monsanto and Dow Chemical were commissioned by the US Government to develop the strongest herbicide ever produced - the super herbicide "Agent Orange." The results were devastating, and now suggests we may have learned nothing about the dangers of herbicides from that experience.
Back in those days I was an activist, naively urging farmers to start replanting crops on their farms so we could be less dependent on imported food and goods. Little did I know that at the same time, the US government was paying the farmers attractive stipends not to farm their land, which continued to the mid-2000s.
At that time, the American people were told that the US supported buying imports because it helped replenish the food supply and that importing was a boost to the economies of foreign countries.
Now the American people are being told GMO's are safe.
So what do we "know" so far about GMO's and their effects on humans?
What we know today about the effects of GMO's on our health, we have learned:
- from scientists and former employees who exposed their biotech employers for falsifying lab results, studies and reports (which said GMO's are safe) in order to keep government funding and to make GMO's publicly acceptable,
- from studies being conducted at reputable universities, hospitals and other institutions
- from friends and family members who are now sick with diseases and conditions that are not found in their family history. They blame their exposure to GMO's,
- from the "leak" of the pictures of lab rats (see photos below) with gross tumors after steadily being fed GMO diets. That was enough to convince me and many others who saw the picture and who watched the video I am including at the end of this article.
- from observing the many changes in our world.
But the truth about the effects of GMO's on our land and in our bodies will only come many years from now in the form 20/20 hindsight.
Monsanto makes the herbicide "Roundup." They won't put GMO on food labels. Hmm, "Roundup" signs on fields of crops, but not on the food labels
Glossary - what all the "cides" mean
herbicide - meant to kill weeds and unwanted plants. It is the mixture of two pesticides and since 1930, heavily used to kill off weeds and plants that were infringing on crops. In 1961, it came into use in war, as Agent Orange, devastating huge land masses of vegetation.
pesticide - meant to kill, destroy or be a repellant for some form of life, and according to the EPA, its job is primarily "preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest. It is a category term for herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. Pesticides have active ingredients that kill the pest and inert ingredients that help the active ingredients work better."
insecticide - meant to kill insects. DDT is the most well known insecticide, popularized by Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring." The DDT link shows how it was sprayed on our crops and linked to cancers in animals, which led to research how it affected humans.
fungicide - meant to kill fungi or fungal spores. Used in crops and animals to control fungal infections.
Do you know what "Roundup Ready" means?
For several years before we saw GMO crops, behind the scenes Monsanto and several other companies (two of which Monsanto later bought and/or took over) were experimenting with genetically modifying the DNA of seeds (cotton, tomatoes, grains, etc). Before approaching farmers to plant, they needed time to complete the experiments to know if the seeds would produce a crop similar to what the public would recognize as a real food, hence the high prices of food and goods, and continuing to import for so long.
Testing on lab rats confirmed that the food from seeds was edible, but few believed the actual written reports which were either squelched or in some cases altered. The pictures of the test lab rats are below in this article.
When Monsanto was finally ready to start planting their GMO seeds, they needed real farms to do the testing. To attract farmer cooperation, Monsanto touted that the added benefit to the farmer was that the seeds were "RoundUp Ready" - which meant farmers now only had to use one herbicide instead of many pesticides and herbicides to keep the weeds and pests under control.
When you hear "RoundUp Ready," rest assured, this is not a good thing for humans.
It means the GMO seeds were already "injected with a bacterial gene" that would allow the crop to tolerate the repeated dousings of the herbicide RoundUp (just like the stuff you use outside your home to kill garden weeds).
It is incomprehensible to me that humans, who are trusted with the responsibility of developing seeds for mass producing food for human consumption, would think it is okay to develop seeds with a bacteria living inside of it (which stays inside the food when we eat it) and that this is an acceptable and ethical business practice?
And why is it acceptable by some governments to still allow it into the food supply systems?
Natural News quote about marketing Round Up ready crops to farmers first. They needed them to be first to grow them! After that, moving GMO's into our stores wo
Monsanto's statement why they don't want GMO labels - because it would confuse us!
The results of experiments on lab rats. These are just the ones we've been told about! (Notice labels of "J, K, L." What happened to A to I and M to Z?)
Monsanto's Lab Rats
The lab rats in the above photo are probably some of the most grotesque photos we have seen of experiments done on animals. I'm sure the company doesn't want you to know what else is going on in their labs.
Truth In Advertising
Because the US has a "Truth in Advertising" law, companies would be compelled to list all the GMO ingredients on the labels of each product.
- Will companies be totally truthful in listing ingredients?
- Will it surprise us to know exactly how many and which trusted companies have been making their foods with GMO ingredients?
- Will it surprise us to know how long we've been ingesting GMO products before we were told about their ingredients?
- Will forced labeling cause us to lose trust in long honored companies?
Monsanto has a lot to lose by labeling. We can't sue them because of the new law specially made that favors them (which no doubt will be renewed every March when it expires).
We can stop buying their products which will likely be just as bad as if they were sued. But will the majority of people actually join in on the boycott?
Probably not. They gotta eat, after all.
The following video in favor of Proposition 37 in California also failed in November 2013. Even though the power of the people supported it, the vote count did not.
Although Prop 37 did not become law in California, this video's message was powerful.
Monsanto's actions speak louder than words
The following photo should speak to you as to how much Monsanto wants to make sure GMO labeling does not come to pass.
This is a public disclosure statement of how much they Monsanto contributed to Washington state's Proposition 522 when it came up for vote on the ballot in November 2013.
It was money well spent in their view - Proposition 522 did not pass muster with the voters. Monsanto won another victory.
Monsanto's record of contribution to 2013 Washington State ballot- total $5.4 million
The following photos are screenshots of a report which was too long to post here. Blue links within photos are disabled, so don't click. Note date.
President Obama made this a law March 2013 - written by a senator whose re-elections receives contributions from Monsanto. He's a "kept man."
Continued from Paragraph Break "consumer" - notice 3rd paragraph. This bill was written by a senator whose re-elections receive contributions from Monsanto. He
Monsanto's special law is expiring March 2014
The law was good for one year, and expires in March 2014. How much do you want to bet that it will get renewed and with as little fanfare as possible?
In fact, we may not even hear that it was renewed; it just will be done.
Dr. Don Huber, scientist and professor emeritus, Purdue University, alerted US government that GMO's might cause infertility.
How much do you trust Bayer Company (makers of Bayer Aspirin)?
Along with Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Dupont and Sygenta Corporation, The Bayer Company is another smaller player in the engineering and growing of GMO's.
Where Monsanto gets away with suing farmers when GMO seeds blow into their fields, Bayer Company has not been so successful.
Bayer admitted in a lawsuit in Erie County, Ohio that they can't control the "contamination" of the fields of farmers who do not grow GMO crops. A US Federal court in Ohio ruled December 4, 2009 that Bayer CropScience (a subsidiary of Bayer Company) must pay $2 million to two Missouri farmers because their rice crop became "contaminated" with an "experimental GMO rice" that Bayer was testing in 2006.
The court verdict set a US legal precedent that says the company who releases the GMO crop is the one who has the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of GMO "contamination".
While this is HUGE, the exact opposite is true for another US company, Monsanto. They are exempt from these lawsuits and in no way will be held responsible for the consequences of GMO "contamination" - either in a farmer's field or later if and when a person gets cancer or any other disease suspected of being caused by a GMO food.
Here's why. Read this next case by clicking on the photo.
Click to Enlarge: This ruling is the exact opposite of the Bayer Company lawsuit
Japan cancelled an order of western wheat after it was determined that a farmer doused "volunteer" wheat with herbicide.
What effects of eating GMO food will we see in the future?
There is little doubt about it; at some point we are all going to suffer the consequences of GMO's in more ways than one.
The first way is from the use of insecticides, pesticides and herbicides on the crops that become our food.
The second way is connected to the first. The reason the insecticides, pesticides and herbicides are needed at all is because the top biotech companies (Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer), who all contribute genetically engineered materials into our food supply, have altered the DNA of the seeds which ultimately becomes our food and are playing God with your life and mine.
Their mission statement is that they are doing this to prevent world hunger, to keep an ample and steady food supply so no one ever goes hungry and that all of this is in our best interests.
What they are not telling us, the consumer, is the long term effects of eating genetically modified foods especially after they are constantly tweaking the DNA of seeds and literally drenching the crops in herbicides, insecticides and pesticides.
They learned a very valuable lesson 40 years ago during the Vietnam war that still holds true today.
To this day, veteran soldiers are still seeking approval to receive government disability insurance, financial and medical benefits for the diseases which resulted from their exposure to Agent Orange when they should receive all of the above automatically just because they served their country.
Because DDT wasn't doing the job fast enough or effectively, Dow Chemical and Monsanto were hired to develop a herbicide that could be sprayed on and in the jungles of Vietnam so that the enemy would have less places to seek cover from gunfire, both from air artillery and on the ground. Agent Orange is a classic example of the unknown. If war didn't kill our soldiers, the residual effects of Monsanto's Agent Orange will, because it lives on from generation to generation.
If Agent Orange caused the effects we see in our sick veterans, and it is now 40 years later.
So what effects do you think we will see in the next 40 years from eating Genetically Modified Foods?
Interesting News Stories
- Farming in the 21st Century
What’s the big deal about GMO versus non-GMO anyway? This is a really “hot” button topic for a lot of people. I learned that the use of genetically modified seed (GMO) has its positives and its negatives.
- Oh! You’re Such A Ham!
One of the major things that differentiate organic farms from non-organic farms is the feed. Many countries don't consider GMO's to be safe and have banned them.
- Monsanto Unapproved GMO Wheat Escapes From The Lab, Lawsuits Follow | Singularity Hub
Monsanto reported finding of unapproved genetically modified wheat in an Oregon field—and nobody knows where it came from. This is of concern to farmers. If genetic modification is the future, how will we control our creations?
- Japan blocks U.S. wheat after Monsanto GMO strain found growing wild | The Raw Story
Japan has suspended imports of some US wheat after genetically engineered crops were found on an Oregon farm. Japan imports around five million tons of wheat/year, 60% from the US, making it one of the largest importers of wheat
Monsanto's message to farmers
The fact that this case took two years to go to trial with no jury and only ONE judge screams FOUL PLAY to me on the part of Monsanto.
In my view, Monsanto could do an awful lot of damage in the two years it took to get to court, and they did.
They filed briefs asking for rulings to prohibit this farmer from planting and harvesting his 1,030 acres of canola until the case went to court. So for two years, he could not sell his own crops because Monsanto said they were "contaminated" with GMO seeds.
In two years the farmer borrowed on his home and land to pay his $400,000 in legal fees and to be able to support his family. With all of Monsanto's legal maneuvers, they played every legal card they could.
Toward the end of the case, Monsanto turned around and sued the farmer for their $2 million in legal fees for their 19 lawyers (which was bogus because they could well afford their own legal fees). In suing him for legal fees, they put a stop to the farmer being able to continue to borrow on his assets to support his family, because Monsanto expected these assets to become Monsanto's when the judge awarded them as a win in this case.
With Monsanto's win of this lawsuit, they set a precedent in Canada (and, by word of mouth, to other countries) that anyone who in any way somehow "ends up" with their land being "contaminated" by GMO crops which they did NOT plant or buy from Monsanto, they are guilty of "patent infringement" and Monsanto has the right to seize their crop.
If a farmer brings a counter-suit against Monsanto (in Canada), it gives Monsanto the right to sue to take their farm, their equipment and even their home (if the home is on that land). The results of this case speaks loud and clear.
The farmer cannot and will not win against biotech companies like Monsanto.
In my view, this case should never have gone to trial or even before a judge, just from the sheer ludicrousness of the accusation.
Now they can and will use this case in the future as leverage and an intimidation factor against anyone else who is thinking of going up against Monsanto in court. I'm sure other biotech companies will also cite this case as an example in the future.
Because Monsanto admitted that Percy Schmeiser's land was "contaminated with GM seed" -- the admission that it was "contaminated" should have made any judge reconsider this lawsuit.
I don't know about you, but the word "contaminated" doesn't have a good meaning for me and when it comes to crops that we will eventually eat, it has a more ominous meaning.
Definition of "Contamination" with my emphasis added - according to Wiktionary
- The act or process of contaminating; pollution; defilement; taint; also, that which contaminates.
- The process of making a material or surface unclean or unsuited for its intended purpose, usually by the addition or attachment of undesirable foreign substances.
When Monsanto won this case, and when Monsanto sued the farmer for $1 million for their legal fees, it wasn't because they couldn't afford the fees.
It wasn't because they were trying to keep the farmer from going into more debt by borrowing on his assets, as they stated in the above article.
It was a legal maneuver.
Because this farmer didn't play into Monsanto's hands when the original lawsuit for patent infringement was served to the farmer (which would be settled by letting Monsanto seize the entire 1,030 acres of crop), and because the farmer decided to take them to court thinking he was in the right, Monsanto made an example out of him.
For every farmer whose land is "contaminated" with GMO seeds they did not obtain from Monsanto, then Monsanto is allowed to seize the crop. If they go to court, Monsanto can (and probably will) win several future harvests.
In the US, because of the new 2013 law in Monsanto's favor, farmers don't stand a chance.
The consumers who want to sue biotech companies for what they think GMO foods did to their health don't stand a chance either.
Published 2/14/2014 by Mary McShane
This is the full 1 hour 20 minute movie every breathing person should watch. It's a little scary, but important to know
© 2014 Mary McShane